(16-08-2013 06:57 AM)LostLocke Wrote: It works by..... averaging.
You do know what averaging is right?

If you ask them their position on 10 different aspects, and they respond with liberal on 5 of them and conservative on 5 of them, that averages to 0, or right in the middle. You wouldn't say they're on the left or the right, so the general label would be moderate.

How would it work? i.e. How would the results make a moderate, consistently?

You apparently can envision it, given that you presented the idea, but I can't see how you think it works.

It is hard for me to even think of 10 different aspects. Most of the time you are just dealing with social, economic or governmental, but even they cross. Some issues are too superficial for me to even be considered on a left-right.

Can you give 10 issues with a 5 to 5, left vs. right, to show how that would lead to a person with overall moderate view? And would that always be moderate, as you switched up the combinations?

Also, like I mentioned, people don't always question their consistency on certain views. That is why I like to stick with three and then question people who pick something inconsistent with the rest, but that only gives you 2/1 at best, and that would not make moderates, always.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell

(16-08-2013 08:20 AM)TrulyX Wrote: It is hard for me to even think of 10 different aspects. Most of the time you are just dealing with social, economic or governmental, but even they cross. Some issues are too superficial for me to even be considered on a left-right.

The issues may fall within those 3 broad spectrum labels, but then you'd have to ask specific questions within each one to determine where their stance is on that area.
IE, the social part could include gay rights, abortion, drug policies, public or private religious practices, etc etc. Being liberal/conservative in one issue does not imply being liberal/conservative in all. And that's just the social part, you'd then have to go and get into details in the economic and government umbrellas too.

(16-08-2013 08:20 AM)TrulyX Wrote: It is hard for me to even think of 10 different aspects. Most of the time you are just dealing with social, economic or governmental, but even they cross. Some issues are too superficial for me to even be considered on a left-right.

The issues may fall within those 3 broad spectrum labels, but then you'd have to ask specific questions within each one to determine where their stance is on that area.
IE, the social part could include gay rights, abortion, drug policies, public or private religious practices, etc etc. Being liberal/conservative in one issue does not imply being liberal/conservative in all. And that's just the social part, you'd then have to go and get into details in the economic and government umbrellas too.

Indeed, on this site almost everyone tends to fall along the progressive scale on social issues but then a sizable portion break hard right when it comes to government and spending (the libertarian/anarcho-capitalist crowd) Gun rights are another area that is pretty divided here. So we end up with people on the left (TheBeardedDude, logica_humano, myself) people roughly in the middle (chas) and people that break right (bbeljeffe, DarkLight, Pheadrus) even if you throw a major social issue out like Abortion almost everyone here is pro-choice but that alone will not tell you the political stance outside of that issue.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote: America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense

But if you look at how people on the forum identify on issues like gun control, I think you will find that there are really just 2 groups represented. Those in the American-Liberal/Democrat group and those who are more libertarian-leaning.

Even on the pro-choice vs pro-life debate, it is really more of a 2 camp point of view here, it just so happens that libertarians and liberals typically come to the pro-life stance, but through different arguments. Liberals would argue pro-choice is the moral choice that gives the individual the rights over their own body, libertarians might agree with that, but would fundamentally say that their stance is based on preventing any government intervention in people's daily lives.

We had a marriage debate not too long back and the same 2 camps came out. Libertarian view is no government say in marriage as a way of protecting individuals, vs the liberal view of government definitions of marriage that promote equality through law.

Then there are the foreigners on the forum, and you get views that are more difficult for me to place, but I tend to think those views lie more firmly in liberal territory.

As to idea of a "moderate", I might contend that term is just BS. A moderate is really just someone with views from the liberal and conservative ends of the spectrum (but not necessarily a libertarian as they are traditionally small-government). The key to political success isn't to get more moderates to encourage cooperation, it is to better display the current choices and opinions to the public instead of the current pile of shit rhetoric that panders to the base of each party so that the candidate can get re-elected.

(16-08-2013 09:15 AM)LostLocke Wrote: The issues may fall within those 3 broad spectrum labels, but then you'd have to ask specific questions within each one to determine where their stance is on that area.

IE, the social part could include gay rights, abortion, drug policies, public or private religious practices, etc etc. Being liberal/conservative in one issue does not imply being liberal/conservative in all. And that's just the social part, you'd then have to go and get into details in the economic and government umbrellas too.

At that point, however, you would just be questioning consistency.

If you think people should have liberties and equality in civil society, with regard to any specific issue, then you want to oppress, or coerce, a specific group, or specific groups, that is an inconsistency, and that's on you to justify.

Same applies to governmental and economic, and same applies if your views are different between governmental, economic and social.

The things you mentioned are just superficial issues. They are used as distraction issues in politics/propaganda. You give a quick emotional appeal and people respond with support irrationally, without actually considering their positions, the consistency of their positions and the reasoning and logic behind their positions. And that is why religion is big in repressive and tyrannical societies-- the justification becomes god and/or faith. That way you can gain support with people already thinking they have the justification.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell

(16-08-2013 10:31 AM)Revenant77x Wrote: Indeed, on this site almost everyone tends to fall along the progressive scale on social issues but then a sizable portion break hard right when it comes to government and spending (the libertarian/anarcho-capitalist crowd) Gun rights are another area that is pretty divided here. So we end up with people on the left (TheBeardedDude, logica_humano, myself) people roughly in the middle (chas) and people that break right (bbeljeffe, DarkLight, Pheadrus) even if you throw a major social issue out like Abortion almost everyone here is pro-choice but that alone will not tell you the political stance outside of that issue.

I don't think "progressive" is the proper term. Liberal might be, but you have to keep in mind what you mean when you say 'liberal' and what you mean when you say "social issues".

Also, with regard to goverment/state, "libertarianism" and "anarchism" are left positions, not right. Right-wing with regard to goverment, is authoritarian. The addition of people being capitalist just makes that an inconsistency, in need of an explanation, i.e., why do you oppose one social, hierarchical institution but not the other and/or why do you justify them being used to any extent (for moderates)?

Gun control isn't even a left-right issue; it is another bullshit issue. A gun isn't an institution in question, or just not specific enough. Gun control is another distraction issue, that keeps people from thinking critically, being genuinely concerned and involved in society and seeing the real problems.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell

(16-08-2013 03:46 PM)TrulyX Wrote: Gun control isn't even a left-right issue; it is another bullshit issue. A gun isn't an institution in question, or just not specific enough. Gun control is another distraction issue, that keeps people from thinking critically, being genuinely concerned and involved in society and seeing the real problems.

Tens of thousands killed each year for no reason isn't a "bull shit issue". Legal murder in some states because the murderer used a firearm and the victim was unarmed, isn't a "distraction issue".

Corporate lobbying, paranoia, extremism, racism, glorification of violence, and firearms proliferation ARE institutionalized illnesses. An infestation, somewhat encouragingly, only manifesting in one first world country. Less encouragingly is that it's being pushed forward in that country more than ever.

The very thing that you're complaining about - distracting people from real issues, not thinking critically - you've just committed that act.

(16-08-2013 03:46 PM)TrulyX Wrote: Gun control isn't even a left-right issue; it is another bullshit issue. A gun isn't an institution in question, or just not specific enough. Gun control is another distraction issue, that keeps people from thinking critically, being genuinely concerned and involved in society and seeing the real problems.

Tens of thousands killed each year for no reason isn't a "bull shit issue". Legal murder in some states because the murderer used a firearm and the victim was unarmed, isn't a "distraction issue".

Corporate lobbying, paranoia, extremism, racism, glorification of violence, and firearms proliferation ARE institutionalized illnesses. An infestation, somewhat encouragingly, only manifesting in one first world country. Less encouragingly is that it's being pushed forward in that country more than ever.

The very thing that you're complaining about - distracting people from real issues, not thinking critically - you've just committed that act.

I don't understand that rant. It's almost entirely nonsensical.

You are going to have to be more reasonable and articulate if you are trying to make an important point.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell